Log in

View Full Version : Quebec's War on the Hijab



RNK
24th March 2007, 04:28
Today the provincial organization responsible for overseeing elections conduct made a ruling on an issue that has been in the news for the past few days concerning whether Muslim women wearing the hijab (the veil that covers their faces) should be allowed when voting in provincial ballots.

Leaders of all the major parties involved in the provincial debate spoke against the hijab, inparticular Mr. Mario Dumont, whose right-wing Action Democratique Quebec Party believes, among other thing, that Quebec should be less accomidating for religious and cultural practices by ethnic minorities.

Since the story first broke several days ago, elections Quebec has received "threatening letters" concerning the topic. While officials downplayed this in interviews, saying they wanted to "avoid people showing up with Darth Vader masks", the true nature of these threats were very apparent. The lead official behind the elections organization has since aquired several bodyguards who will accompany him until the elections are over (on Monday).

So today, due to this pressure, the elections board has decided to re-write the law that once protected hijab-wearers, demanding that they must now remove their veil in order to vote. Citing the need to accurately identify voters via photo ID, the move is claimed to be to protect against voting fraud. However, the law already had a long-standing compromise; in the past, hijab-wearers, or any others who could not/refused to show their faces, were allowed to vote if they brought one person to vouche for their identity as well as two identifying documents that included the voter's address (for voter identification).

This move comes after a year of increased pressure on Muslims in Quebec. Over the past few months inparticular several high-profile cases involving the hijab have sparked outrage across Quebec. The town of Herouxville made international attention when it passed a law to "adopt a declaration of "norms'' that tells immigrants how to fit" (quoted from the CTV), as well as banning the hijab. Quebec public security officials declared a ban on hijabs for prison guards, claiming they could be used by inmates to strangle guards (but did they ban necklaces?). And recently, a Quebec soccer association decided that referees were not allowed to wear hijabs.

Taken on their own, these laws may be practical and understandable. But put into the context of this apparent "assault" on Muslims, it paints a much darker picture, particularly given the ominous line adopted by Herouxville, and the fact that the law was changed due to threats of violence. What does that say about us? What does it say when we enact laws that strip minorities of their ethnic traditions because of racist threats?

Now, don't get me wrong. I share the same aversion to religious indoctrination as the rest of us. But I also hold a strong aversion to discrimination, particularly when it is against a minority group that has already suffered quite a lot.

So what is everyone else's thoughts on this matter? Personally, I think I'm going to show up at my local voting location with a sign saying "No hijab? No Cross, no Star Of David..." Well, I don't know any other religious symbols.. you get the idea. Hopefully someone will attack me. I should perhaps bring a comrade with a camera.

blake 3:17
24th March 2007, 18:32
It's appalling. It's just racist crap.

Has Quebec Solidaire said anything about this?

RNK
24th March 2007, 21:21
I don't believe they made all that much fuss over it -- too afraid it may lose them what little votes they have. Any opinion they may have voiced over it were probably a footnote in the back of some obscure Quebecois newspaper and nothing more.

Lynx
27th April 2007, 05:31
There used to be a time when 'respect' was the word used when discussing these issues. Now someone has invented a new term, 'reasonable accommodation'. It is nothing more than an excuse for xenophobia.

Rural Quebec is white, mostly francophone and homogeneous in culture. The kind of place WN's dream of. Lack of racism in rural Quebec is linked to lack of opportunity to engage in it.

RNK
27th April 2007, 06:56
Yeah. Quebec City inparticular seems to have become an absolute hotbed for WNs. Thankfully, though, Quebec has one of the most active, if not THE most active, anti-racist and anti-fascist movements in all of north america. This move has done nothing but expose the inherent racism of our so-called 'beautiful, peace-loving and accepting country of Canada' that everyone in the world seems to think of us as. It's hard to be full of yourself in your own "international glory" when your government is actively pursuing an agenda of cultural oppression.

BuyOurEverything
29th April 2007, 20:31
This was such a bullshit issue. I remember when it happened, the Concordia student newspaper went out and actually interview a woman who wore the hijab (apparently that was too complex a task for all the mainstream media) and she said "taking off the veil is no problem for official purposes, we do it all the time for things like drivers licence photos." The whole thing was a complete load of bullshit manufactured by the ADQ that everyone went along with.

Lynx
29th April 2007, 20:51
Yes, including the Directeur Generale des Elections du Quebec :(

whoknows
10th May 2007, 05:40
Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 03:28 am




So today, due to this pressure, the elections board has decided to re-write the law that once protected hijab-wearers, demanding that they must now remove their veil in order to vote. Citing the need to accurately identify voters via photo ID, the move is claimed to be to protect against voting fraud.

here in Iowa we don't show an ID, we just give our name and address. Is that how voting there just to work? If so there is a problem with the change in the law. This is a problematic topic for me as religion suppresses humanity and humaness, and I'm glad when it is itself suppressed. I would perfer to see it laughted out of town rather than beaten down with it's own tactics. So as glad as I might be that a god nut will have a totalatarian behavor interfered with, I'm with you in that oppression of a symtom is not the liberation of the deluded. Well, perhaps that was bold, you may not be with me.
PS I'm finding the word racist applied to islamic peoples interesting. Of course any color of skin can be seen of a Moslim, but most often I hear the term race used, in connection with Islamic people, by standard issue 'white' persons. When I was in school 50 years ago, we were taught that Arabs and Indians where white no matter how dark they might be. I've called my older sisters and they confirm that that is what they were taught as well. We grew up in a town locked in a purpetual race war between whites and blacks (talk about dividing and conquering the working class!) now I live in the MOST liberal town in my state and the only white person you will find is the one talking to you. They don't even let Greeks be white. It's just amazing. What do they think arabs are? Poor old humanity, we're one flesh on one world and just a crazy as hell.

Lynx
11th May 2007, 00:06
Arabs are Caucasian. There may have been a time when Caucasian was synonymous with 'white' but racists have since appropriated the word.

Voter ID in Quebec is your driver's license or provincial health card. Both bear a photo. There is no need to have someone remove their veil, the theft of an ID card for use in voter fraud is kind of rare :rolleyes:

Cheung Mo
20th May 2007, 23:18
What I don't understand about Quebec is why people are advocating either forced assimiliation or reactionary applications of multiculturalism (i.e. The subjugation of women or the perception that society is willing to subordinate gender equality to the interests of a few religious extremists, such as the affair with Hasidic Jews being able to demand male driving test inspectors, represents multiculturalism for its own sake without regards for the reactionary repercussion of supporting it...It would be akin to using feminism to justify support for the Thatcher regime.) when there is a logical middle ground: It's completely unjustified to force a veil off a Muslim or a kirpan away from a Sikh (It will be harder to address the conditions that lead to their needing this opiate if the focus is on the symptom rather than the disease...And the excesses of both band-aid bourgeois liberalism and religious and xenophobic bourgeois conservatism are simply going to perpetuate a culture of repression and exploitation), but at the same time, frosting windows, circumventing bourgeois legal equality (i.e. implementing policies that are homophobic, misogynist, or otherwise reactionary in order to appease mystical ignorance of any sect), limiting access to public facilities, and neutering science, anti-bullying, and sex education programs in order to satisfy the moral hygiene of Abrahamic and other sorts of mythological mumbo-jumbo (Go Engels! :D) can never be justified, whatever they call their sky pixies and whatever colour their skin may be.

Pawn Power
24th May 2007, 06:39
Since everyone seems to be in accord in support of womens' right to "choose" their dress I will present this quote from the one and only redstar2000, not only because it may lively up debat but also because it holds a degree of merit.

redstar

The hijab is a badge of female inferiority. Women only wear it because they fear what will happen to them if they don't.

I believe is arguement followed that the majority of muslim women, even in the west, really don't have a "choice" to wear a hijab. And that it is both a form and a symobl of oppression that should not be tolerated in spite of "ethnic" or "cultural" respects.

praxis1966
24th May 2007, 10:24
Originally posted by Pawn [email protected] 23, 2007 11:39 pm
Since everyone seems to be in accord in support of womens' right to "choose" their dress I will present this quote from the one and only redstar2000, not only because it may lively up debat but also because it holds a degree of merit.

redstar

The hijab is a badge of female inferiority. Women only wear it because they fear what will happen to them if they don't.

I believe is arguement followed that the majority of muslim women, even in the west, really don't have a "choice" to wear a hijab. And that it is both a form and a symobl of oppression that should not be tolerated in spite of "ethnic" or "cultural" respects.
Not to mention that nowhere in the Quran does it mandate that women must wear bee-keeper suits. It was an edict handed down by various clerics (in Saudi Arabia, if I'm not mistaken) and is completely out of step with Sharia as stated by the Quran. It's a cultural invention, so crying 'religious discrimination' in this instance is total horse shit.

BuyOurEverything
15th June 2007, 05:04
The issue at hand here is NOT the hijab. There has never been a complaint (at least the last time I checked, which was about a month ago) to the election board by a Muslim woman who wears the Hijab about having to remove her Hijab. Nor was there any indication from the Hijab wearing community (see above post) that this was at all a problem or would stop anyone at all from voting. The issue here was that a complete fucking non-issue was used in the election to race-bait.

RedArmyFaction
24th June 2007, 15:51
i think muslims should be allowed to wear the hijab without question